Sunday, 17 May 2015

"Here Comes The Groom"

Ireland goes to the polls this week to decide on what a former Labour Party Leader declared to be 'the most important civil rights issue of the generation'. Wow! And what would the most important civil rights issue of the generation be? Why it's same-sex marriage. Bet you didn't know that. Yes, the appeal of marital bliss has suddenly dawned on the notoriously promiscuous homosexual community. So be prepared for emotional renditions of Here Comes The Groom as Bruce and Selwyn vow till death (or the appearance of the first good-looking young man) do we part.

Many see the issue as a harmless extension of civil rights to another 'marginalised and vulnerable' grouping. Which doesn't explain the explosion of financial, media, political and even judicial support for the Yes side, whose campaign has been marked by a degree of viciousness and intolerance arguably unseen since the Civil War nearly 100 years ago. These "liberals" can be strange people.

But beyond the simple and 'harmless' extension of human rights, the rubric under which the vote is peddled, lies an altogether more sinister piece of legislation railroaded through Parliament without opposition or even debate. The Children and Family Relationships (C&FR) Bill will fundamentally alter the nature of the family. It will for example enable a same-sex couple to adopt. And this, according to Fintan O'Toole, the High Priest of Irish "liberalism", has been the main driver for the Yes campaign. Thanks for your honesty Fintan, if for nothing else.The Bill will also sharply shift the balance from biological to 'psychological' parenting, and from first marriages to second and third relationships. With the state - as in the kind of people who did such a stellar job in the Rotherham sex abuse scandal - deciding which option is 'in the best interests of the child'. Yeah, right.

So yes, genetics are pretty much out of date and what matters now is the quality and quantity of the 'love' the child receives. Experts tell us so. So it must be right. They tell us that we're 'obsessed' with biological parenting and must be open to other forms. This way we'll be liberal, progressive, tolerant and enlightened as distinct from being HATERS!!! "Everyone Is Equal" the posters proclaim. Really? So a child-murdering paedophile is equal to a brain surgeon? Ok, got it. Glad we cleared that up.

Normally I'm not one for the 'slippery slope' argument but this extension of 'equal rights' to same-sex unions really does open up an appalling vista. Once the principle of marriage not necessarily being a biological heterosexual union is conceded why then should the definition not be extended in due course to cover various other forms? Why not 'marriage' between three or more partners, between brother and sister, between father and daughter? Well, why not? They're all equal, are they not? Incestuous unions would of course result in a proliferation of the retarded inbred mutants of Pakistani origins who now prowl the streets of Britain. But the Project Team have an answer to that as well. "What, are you suggesting that such people don't have the right to life? That they're (shudder) inferior?' You're a HATER!!

End of argument.

You can see how it goes. And have no doubt that in due course it will. Because this project, financed massively from wealthy external sources (Soros, Chuck Feeney and other shadowy groups) is not about gay rights, and still less - Heaven forfend - about the rights of the unfortunate children caught up in the ensuing maelstrom. No, it's another step - and a major one - in the Long March Through The Institutions. The war against nature, the project to corrupt, subvert, debase and ultimately destroy the White Christian-derived social order and the unequalled civilisation that accompanied it.

So what's the likely outcome of the Referendum? As of now the polls suggest an overwhelmingly Yes vote. But the lead, though still huge, is rapidly narrowing as more and more voters realise, despite No campaigners not lifting their heads above the parapet, that maybe tinkering with nature and with an institution that has formed the basis of society for thousands of years may not be as great as it's been proclaimed.

117 comments:

Tens of thousands of Christian immigrants who have become Irish citizens are being mobilised across the Republic to vote down a historic move to legalise gay marriage in Ireland this week.

While liberal Roman Catholic priests and nuns are defying their bishops to urge a yes vote on Friday, religious leaders in the evangelical Christian community are now placing their congregations on the frontline of the battle to persuade Ireland to say no.

The Irish Republic is the first country in the world to hold a referendum to decide on whether or not the state should allow gay marriage. If passed, the right of gay couples to marry will be incorporated into the Republic’s constitution.

In the yes corner are radical Catholic clergy such as Sister Stanislaus Kennedy, a lifelong anti-poverty campaigner who backed gay marriage last week. On the no side, more than 30 born-again Christian pastors originally from Africa and representing dozens of churches are urging their congregations to help defeat marriage equality.

As campaigning enters its last week, both sides accept the gap between yes and no is narrowing. An opinion poll published by the Irish Times newspaper had the yes vote on 58% and the no vote on 25%, with 17% indicating they were undecided.

But a previous poll found that, among the age group with the highest voting rate in Ireland – the over-65s– a majority say they would reject the move to equal marriage. And organisers of an evangelical alliance for a no vote believe that the votes of up to 200,000 African and eastern European immigrants, many of them conservative Christians and Muslims, could help swing the vote in favour of no on 22 May.

All these people who wax lyrical about women in society and their roles yet argue that they are not required when bringing up a child. A child needs a male and female input when growing up…This is about children and the Yes side are effectively arguing the rights of the adults are above those of the child..

You're right that the push for gay "rights" in the West is only about white genocide. The media only presents white men as limp-wristed effeminate gays juxtaposed to virile black and Hispanic men. It's an attempt to demoralize us and to subliminally reinforce the concept that sodomy is only acceptable (and indeed encouraged) among whites. The less of us out there breeding, the better as far as our masters are concerned.

The next step, obviously, is the way of the prophet. Any age you fancy will be able to get married. After that you'll be able to marry your dog or cat. Well they are sentient beings and have rights. I personally can't wait for the step after this. I want to marry a tree. Not a sapling I stress. A mature tree with big branches. I'm a bit of a branch man. Nothing wrong with me. None of that marrying immature tree nonsense we must have standards.

Edmondson also quotes a May 11, 1933 address at the Hebrew University by the famous Jewish poet N.H. Bialik which confirms a Jewish agenda few Jews are aware of. He says Jews have undermined Christianity by "deliberate Jewish conniving...it has been effected in great measure by crypto Jews (secret Jews) who have permeated Christianity and spoken through the mouth of Christianity." (51)

He says these crypto Jews are also the creators of "the Renaissance, of Liberalism, of Democracy, of Socialism, and of Communism." (151)

Remember Bialek was speaking in 1933: "The Gentiles have at last realized this secret--that Judaism has gradually penetrated and permeated them like a drug. The Gentile nature is in revolt, and is trying to organize the final battle...They would 'smoke us out' of all the cracks and crannies where we have hidden. They would exterminate us like bacilli and be rid of us." (152) (Judaism in History-A Jewish Conception in "Lines of Communication" July 1933)

But that didn't happen. We tried to exterminate Germany instead. Well done goys.

Iron Felix - you don't know Feeney. Just to give one example of his largesse, he gave $4.3m to the Immigrant Council of Ireland between 2003 and 2009. Just take a brief look through the site of his "charity" Atlantic Philanthropies. This guy is up there with Soros when it comes to nation-wrecking.

Thanks for the post savant,You put it better than I could ever. The best thing the gays did was capture the word "equality", sure how could you be against equality??? Their comapign has been very slick alright.

But I think people are finally seeing through it, they're tired of having to hide their opinions...watch for a tight finish to this.

p.s. Great white, yeah Simon Sheppard had a story about a Sikh who cut his hair and pretended a Nazi did it. It was up in Scotland. Thousands and thousands of liberals and anti-whites held a candle-light vigil.

Once he was outed as a fraud, they didn't care because "a Nazi would have knocked his turban off and cut his hair anyway".

Thanks for a great post, Savant. Just one little point of disagreement: we are already near bottom of that slippery slope. It started with divorce in the 1500s, accelerated with birth control in the 1920s, all kind of idiotic US Supreme Court decisions either fostering a puerile egalitarianism or militant anti-Christianity in the 1950s & 1960s (and after), and now this. (Similar trends in the rest of what was once Christendom.) This lunacy won't sustain itself, and I sometimes think there won't be any historians to record how it all ends because the inheritors of the Americas and Europe aren't interested in such things as history.

GREAT NEWS IN CHICAGO,weekend so far temp in the 80s as of sunday nite 2300 15 shot 3 doas all non humans. no one in custody at this time but police are investigating but not to hard,john old rtf chicago copper,

Hey Savant, hopefully the " NO" will have it. Also I hope the judiciary in Ireland is somewhat more restrained than here in the US. Where state after state voter referendums banning gay marriage or gay adoptions have been overturned by the liberal "Judge kings". As they manufacture all sorts of rights nowhere even hinted at in the Constitution. So the "Will of the people" only matters if you have the correct ideas.

Unbelievable this is even being considered in Ireland of all places. Just amazing. Even in the U.S. no state has voted in gay marriage in any state elections, unfortunately our Federal government has overridden the will of the people and enacted it anyhow, but I am shocked the Irish might actually vote this abomination in willingly.What has happened to the street fighting Irish over the past twenty years?Ironically the largest block of people who will vote against this are the "New Irish", yes, the Pakis, niggers and Muslims.

And John Chicago. Thanks for the good news although after your intro I felt a bit let down by the DOA figures. But good to know that their carcasses, by providing soil enrichment, will do some good as distinct from the live versions.

ABC has declared that a white couple, marrying and having a child at 23, is an "alternative lifestyle".. So the only white males that "THEY" find acceptable are the ones that do not reproduce. WE have gone from "women have the right to equal pay" to "women who marry and have children are not normal"

Only one little issue I have with this post Sav. Any Irish adult can adopt, married or not. Married couples do have it easier though, but even a university student can adopt, if they wish.

The second part of that paragraph is still spot on though. Check out what happened in Canada as a result of the legalisation of this thing. They've taken away all mention of "natural parents" and replaced it with the Orwellian "legal parents". The exact same thing will happen here.

Anyway, love this place, and I hope you continue writing, since places like these are few and far between now.

It's the total mind control that impresses me most about this campaign; it's like an exercise in mass programming. There's the gay flag over the City Hall in Cork City; I went into the library and it was there too, promoting gay fiction week; I was in a local community centre recently and YES posters were the walls-it's everywhere, and if you question the fairness of this in respect of the referendum, you get shouted down as a homophobe.

Then all the limp wristed kids in college are going around with YES badges. If you walk around the University campus you'll be struck by the effeminacy of the guys there, anyway.

The softening up was done on the media months in advance.

It really is a coordinated exercise in brainwashing, well funded and planned.

But it shows what can be done in a relatively short space of time. Now imagine if the message were different, something more salutary, like decent White Pride.

SEVERAL READERS HAVE REPORTED THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THEIR COMMENTS. ALMOST CERTAIN THAT THEY'VE GONE INTO SPAM. WHILE I DO SCAN THE FOLDER BEFORE DELETION I CAN'T READ THEM ALL AND GOON THE BASIS OF READER'S NAMES.

THIS MEANS THAT IF YOU POST AS ANONYMOUS YOU WON'T BE SEEN. THEREFORE I'D ASK ANYONE WHO STILL DOES THIS TO USE SOME SORT OF A HANDLE TO AVOID THE PROBLEM.

lol at 'Men have fertility issues too'. Sure, if they've ED or are over 70. There was a study done that indicated children had higher instances of certain genetic diseases if the father was older, but differences pretty much disappeared (between older and younger fathers) when mothers age was held constant. Trying to find it now.

Is there anyone who comes out of the white man created and then Jew corrupted universities who is capable of not following the herd towards extinction.Get burdened with a huge debt, self-loathing, and almost zero prospect of getting a job in your field while the capitalist hating university professors pull in 150 grand for doling out poison.The profs are to stupid to think things through. Will the Haitians continue man's progress after the white profs get their wish of a white free world?Bring on the revolution and learn how to tie a noose.

How to buy an Irish referendumPOSTED ON MAY 11, 2015 UPDATED ON MAY 13, 2015

Have you been wondering why we are having a referendum on same sex marriage in 2015 – when families nationwide struggle to pay mortgages, household bills and endless new taxes and charges?

Have you been wondering why the Government is so committed to changing the definition of marriage for evermore, has pushed through important legislation about children in jig time, and why every organ of the state including a large portion of the media, CEO’s of multinational companies, state agencies, retired judges and even elements within the Gardaí are pushing a YES vote?

Judges in the US decided that faggots had every right to adopt. Not an expert but I think Catholic-related charities got out of adoption business in regard to that development. To their credit, but I could be wrong. Catholics making plenty of money from government by pushing diseased third worlders on us, anyway.Big push now is the transexual thing. NYTimes in a frenzy about it lately.

Fintan in NYTimes today. Conflates the Wilde case in England with the formerly socially conservative Irish in a sort of "Gee whiz, look at us now." And don't worry because Irish mothers are going to see to it that "all their children" are loved equally.

We are all being "played" to use the formerly ghetto vernacular. Apparently, the powers that be, or more correctly, the powers that wannabe, think we really believe their nonsense. In reality, no one believes it because it would nullify us as human beings. Which is the plan in the global scheme of things. The victims need all our attention because their need is so great. If you're not being starved, robbed and raped in the mud, then you have no complaint. Oh, and we get to judge all this.

No doubt this is an international operation, just like the whole immigration racket is centrally connived also. It's almost like a franchise operation. I also think that was the reason Ireland was first in EU to introduce a smoking ban-to test the waters, so to speak, in a quiet, smallish laboratory.

guys, for those who have small business, how do you deal with affirmative actions and positive discrimination when hiring your employees?This can be very important when you apply for governmental grants, which are all heavily dependent upon promises of increasing diversity etc.For private business or startup partly relying on grants conditional of AA and PD, what happens if your staff, is 'not diverse' can you get pressure? threatened? comply to hire diversity or you 'll get dry?

This is perfectly on topic, I thought about this counter measure: these days it seems that if you a re a male in ALL appearance, you can still pretend to be transgender and be female in your head and nobody is supposed to question that, those who would, will be called homophobic. So I guess during hiring, 'undiversed' cis-gender people could decide to go trans and put LGBT on the form...excellent for diversity.What about race now?, can a male Caucasian decides that is a female (transgender), and black....and fill the AA forms accordingly?After all, most here are 'cis-gender' are just the subset of those whose physical appearance is in accordance with their sexual orientation, and nobody actual controls if you are cisgender or transgender under penalty of homophobia, so I assume an undiverse applicant to a new position could 'feel' that he is transracial as well...'who are you to question my racial orientation? racial mental self-identification is not a choice etc...' you got the idea.Would that work to evade AA policies?

Back in the 1880s a cultural marxist called Durkheim studied the prevalence of suicide in various societies to see what factors were involved and found that a lack of normalcy increased it i.e. a lack of clear, commonly accepted social rules.

As you probably well know, so called "Conservative" PM David Cameron forced this through the last parliament in the UK.

I'm not really convinced about the slippery slope argument as I think there is a huge leap between what is basically a minor change allowing something like 0.5% of the population to have bureaucratic recognition of their relationship, to open incest and paedophilia.

I am convinced this is about symbolism, a trivial change in the law which will have no real impact beyond a very small group of people, but it will draw out social conservatives and allow our media and political leaders to demonstrate how nice and tolerant they are compared to these bigoted and nasty homophobes who seek to impose their values on everyone else.

You are quite familiar with the situation in South Africa. How would you describe it now, and how do you see it in 10–20 years? Given the conditions in South Africa, should White South Africans be allowed to immigrate to countries like the UK and the Netherlands where their ancestors originated? If so, how can this be facilitated?

I’ve been exposing the injustices facing minority South Africans for several years now.

My commentary on the ongoing genocide perpetrated against South Africa’s minority communities, of which my Afrikaner grandmother and Anglo-Indian grandfather were part of, and work as Director and Spokesman for the NGO, Stop the Killing, has been shared in literally dozens of English and Afrikaans South African publications, including Dan Roodt’s Praag.

Dan in fact wrote an open letter to Nigel Farage after my suspension, informing him that UKIP’s actions would result in the loss of tens of thousands of South African expat votes.

My desire to see political recognition of the genocide of all Western people was one of the primary reasons I became involved in UKIP in the first place — the one party I was hopeful would show concern for this very important humanitarian cause. UKIP also knew this early on.

Your comments?

As an aside, I popped in to see my immigration person a few days ago, purely to say hello, but she is out of town. Interestingly enough, I was told by her assistant that NZ Immigration is toughening up big-time regarding Saffas.

How close did Hitler come to winning World War II? What was the real turning point in the war, and why? In this pathbreaking revisionist study, Professor Stolfi provides some startling answers to these questions.

If Hitler had played his cards just a bit differently, contends the author -- a professor of Modern European History at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California -- he could have won the war. German forces came very close to defeating the Soviet Union in 1941. Because Britain alone posed no mortal threat to German power, the defeat of Soviet Russia would effectively have ended the war, resulting in German hegemony over all of Europe. The result would have been a drastic change in the course of world history.

When Americans think of the Second World War, it is understandably most often in terms of the United States role, such as in the D-Day invasion or the war in the Pacific against Japan. Often overlooked or improperly appreciated is the Russo-German conflict, even though it was on the eastern front that most of the fighting took place, and where the war was really decided. The war's greatest land battles were waged in the east, dwarfing those on other fronts. Three out of five German divisions were destroyed by Soviet forces. By the time American troops landed in France in the June 1944 D-Day invasion -- less then a year before the end of the war -- the outcome had already been determined.

Nicola Sturgeon's SNP won an unprecedented 56 out of the 59 Scottish seats in the British ParliamentScotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was labelled "Britain's most dangerous woman" by some sections of the tabloid media during the run up to the General Election. Some people fear that she's on a mission to break up the United Kingdom in a bid to fulfil her independence ambitions. That may well be the case, but that soubriquet was also used by some of Britain's most committed members of the pro-Israel lobby whose main national interests lie well beyond these shores. They saw some of their biggest political supporters fall in an astonishing electoral performance by Sturgeon's Scottish National Party (SNP).

When the polls closed, the dramatic count that followed saw the emergence of a new political landscape. The leader of the Scottish Labour Party, and Israel's biggest cheerleader next to former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, lost his seat by 3,000 votes. A former chair of Labour Friends of Israel (LFI), Jim Murphy was ousted by the SNP's Kirsten Oswald in Renfrewshire East.

As the polling dust settled, the SNP had won an unprecedented 56 of the 59 constituencies across Scotland, turning them into Zionist lobby-free zones for the first time in decades. Indeed, the Westminster lobby groups of various political Friends of Israel were heavily depleted following high profile departures from the ranks of MPs which left the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats with just one representative in Scotland each. To add to their woes, none of those left standing from the political blitz in Scotland are active supporters of the State of Israel.

A friend reports; a "journalist" (sic) in one of the Irish papers instructed his readership that they were to vote YES because otherwise Ireland would become a pariah in the eyes of the world. That is what he wrote. My friend reckoned he had found the level of ethics on the Yes side when he read this.

Just in case any of you thought that the rape and pimping out of underage white English girls was confined to Muslims here's a load of Sikhs and Hindus also at it with twelve year old girls and in the formerly pleasant old market-town of Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire:

Girl who was 'victim of Asian abuse gang had sex with 60 men after first being approached in Woolworths aged just 12'

The cis-racial people are those whose phenotypic appearance and genetic makeup fits with their mental racial self-identificationimage. Being cis-racial however, is no more natural than being trans-racial or a-racial, or conversely, being trans-racial is no less natural than being cis-racial. In any case we should end stereotype and prejudice against trans-racial people and not be afraid to fill the census or AA forms in accordance with the race(s) we identify.Unfortunately, prejudice still exists. You all know those DNA ancestry kits, that are affordable these days.In one of the forum (namely 23&me) there was a guy - Caucasian - who desperately asked some advice for how to be able to show that he was in fact a Native American. He was an entrepreneur seeking a contract for some construction work on Native territory. But the contract could only be acknowledged to a Native American Entrepreneur member of the First Nation concerned. He had no chance to get it without First Nation recognition. Luckily for him, 23&me had detected a small percentage of Asian or Native Amerindian DNA in his genes. So he asked if there was a way to correlate his 'Native DNA' to one of the First Nation tribe, and get the contract.Unfortunately, he was told by the 23&me administration that 23&me could not be used for this purpose and anyways, that the First Nation tribes do not recognize DNA as a guaranty of membership! This is outrageous! this is like denying the Right of people to identify to the Race and Sex of their choice, it is nothing less than racism and sexism, which have no place in today's America!

A demonstration with all the trans-racial people , perhaps a parade at the side of the LGBT, some sort of lobbying anyways, is absolutely necessary !

In the US there is an organization of people who were adopted by queers that oppose children being adopted by queers. I am sure you haven't heard much about this group. Neither have I as I don't remember the name of the group.

Un-fukkin-believable. The detective in the diamond robbery said, "7 White men have been arrested." When was the last time the pigs said that they have arrested 10 pakis or 50 apes. Stupid pc positive discrimination ziomebia ass sluts. I hope all the pigs get AIDs from all the kosher sausages tgey take in their mouths.

In regard to the reinterpretation of WWII, it speaks to the sorry level of education in the new century. If you're pig ignorant and have never read a book, then common cliches appear as revelations. Of course, the Russians bore the brunt of the land war in Europe, as one might expect they would as they had a 1500 mile front with the Nazis.

This kind of stuff is why I gave up on reading the New York Times some years ago. One of its geniuses breathlessly reported that, you know what?, this isn't the first time that New York was hit in a terrorist attack. Why, you know what?, I've discovered that there was a bomb attack at the JP Morgan offices in 1920. A revelation to the Ivy League hack but an incident commonly taught in high school history classes in the sixties.

The level of education, even among the so-called elites, has gotten so low that simple fact is presented as insight. But the really good news is that the arrogant elitists are naive of their ignorance.

I take what’s mine, you accept what they they give you, I get you;I don’t take no checks, I take my respect;Pharrell even told me go with the safest bet;Jimmy Iovine on for the safety net;Google dig around a crazy check;I feel like YouTube is the biggest culprit;Them n*****s pay you a tenth of what you supposed to get;You know n*****s die for equal pay right;You know when I work I ain’t your slave right?You know I ain’t shucking and jiving and high-fiving, and you know this ain’t back in the days right?Well I can’t tell, how the way they killed Freddie Gray right?Shot down Mike Brown, how they did Tray right?Let them continue choking n*****s;We gon’ turn style, I ain’t your token n*****.

So that is why Kanye West was featured in The Hobbit episode of South Park as Morgan Freeman, Samuel L Jackson, that other dude ares cheaper to get to play scientists than their white counterparts such as Natalie Portman.

Boycott muzak and Hollywood movies until there is equal pay for athletes and non-athletes!

Anon @14.40I too noticed that reports said that 'white men' had been arrested.I think the reason for this was that a group of white men including a couple of seventy year olds are better at committing crime than other races. No violence. Lots of planning. Only the rich get robbed.

Air Force general who spoke of God should be court-martialed, group says

An Air Force general who recently spoke about how God has guided his career should be court-martialed, a civil liberties group is saying.

In a speech at a National Day of Prayer Task Force event on May 7, Maj. Gen. Craig Olson credits God for his accomplishments in the military, and refers to himself as a “redeemed believer in Christ.”

The Air Force Times reports that the MILITARY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM FOUNDATION has taken issue with Olson’s remarks, is calling for the two-star general to be court-martialed and "aggressively and very visibly BROUGHT TO JUSTICE FOR HIS UNFORGIVABLE CRIMES AND TRANSGRESSIONS."http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/17/air-force-general-who-spoke-god-in-speech-should-be-court-martialed-group-says/?intcmp=obinsite

The MILITARY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM FOUNDATION (MRFF) is a watchdog group and advocacy organization founded in 2005 by Michael WEINSTEIN.http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/about/michael-l-mikey-weinstein/

D'Neice Charlatan raises a good point there about that little bakery in Belfast. Will we now see a procession of envenomed fags trooping into that shop to vexatiously place orders calculated to give offence to the proprietors?

The pre-war British establishment was Illuminati and Communist to the core.

They put Hitler into power in Germany and then maneuvered him into

a war that would destroy Germany as an independent country once and for all.

http://henrymakow.com/001766.html

World War 2.

"We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not." Winston Churchill. 1936 broadcast.__________________

"Germany becomes too powerful, (Economically) we have to crush it." Winston Churchill, November 1936 speaking to US General Robert E. Wood.__________________

"This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany." Winston Churchill, Autumn 1939 broadcast.

"The war wasn't only about abolishing fascism, but to conquer sales markets. We could have, if we had intended so, prevented this war from breaking out without doing one shot, but we didn't want to." Winston Churchill to Truman. Fultun, USA March 1946._______________

"Germany's unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system, and to build up an independent exchange system from which the world finance couldn't profit anymore. We butchered the wrong pig."

Winston Churchill. The Second World War, Bern, 1960.__________________

"We made a monster, a devil out of Hitler, therefore we couldn't disavow it after the war. After all, we mobilized the masses against the devil himself. So we were forced to play our part in this diabolic scenario after the war. In no way we could have pointed out to our people that the war only was an economic preventive measure." US Sec of State, James Baker. 1992._________________

"The enemy is the German Reich and not Nazism, and those who still haven't understood this, haven't understood anything."

Churchill's chief counselor Robert Lord Vansittart, as said to foreign minister Lord Halifax, September 1940.

Well well well. So WW2 was all bullshit from start to finish. And the results? Not good at all.

Harry Truman made the decision to drop the bomb on Japan. In reality, they were going to drop the bomb no matter what. Truman would have had to have been George Washington, Lincoln and Jesus Christ to have stopped it.Truman was informed of the Nagasaki bomb almost as an afterthought.

Harry Truman made the moral decision to integrate the US Army. According to General Marshal, they had to integrate the units in Korea because the black segregated units were melting away in combat.

What's being done to prosecute the law enforcement people who ignored the "grooming"/rape incidents apparently so prevalent over there? I mean, you don't have a bill of rights but rape and kidnapping is serious business. And how do twelve year old white girls wander around so as to be taken advantage of like that?

Fifteen or twenty short years ago, I was a rabid movie fan. If it moved, I watched it. Needless to say my disappointment levels (always high) slowly and inexorably began to climb. I could not fathom why this should be, after all film, in all its manifestations, was, in my opinion, an art form -- the lively art as it was once called.

After all, the production quality was rocketing ahead in leaps and bounds. Sound tracks were being refined to audiophile standards; special effects, costumes, sets and props no longer relied on the willing suspension of disbelief to be credible; the art of cinematography was being re-defined in such a fashion so that the tiniest, subtlest gestures could tell a story ... even overall colour could be shifted (colour timing) to convey a mood or an era.

Yet I found myself, among all these treasures, less and less satisfied with what was put on the screen in front of me.

Then I became jew-aware (again) and realised that the industry was being run, or driven, by the same old Philistines.

Even as the lower echelons were feverishly working to improve matters technological, the scum at the top were subverting the whole enterprise, using it for their endless agenda, sticking it to Whitey and, not incidentally, selling their shrivelled little souls to their god ... Mammon.

They have now ramped it up to the point where everything -- everything they engage in, furthers the jew agenda.

My point? My point is that I have not been inside a cinema since the first "Hobbit" movie -- going on for three years, now. I steal everything off the internet ... AND I STILL FEEL CHEATED!! I even resent the bandwidth used in downloading the shit. I should point out that I am still very picky.

I will not touch so-called American comedy if it has a low-brow jew-centric theme, so, Adam Sandler et al will not get a look in. Nor does anything top-heavy with feminist bullshit or inappropriate negroids in lead roles get past the filter.

Comic book superhero flicks -- oddly enough, an exclusively yid invention** are basically the same plot over and over and over again; only the CG and the costumes become more lavish -- and expensive, so, give them a miss.

Needless to say, any POS that even mentions "holocaust" "Nazi" "Camps" or similar goes straight into file 13. Hollywood mainstream is pretty much off the table.

Nor will I consider crap from the known perverts and molesters, so, Brian Singer, Woody Allen and all the rest ... don't bother.

.For those who may wonder what brought on that diatribe about Movies and the joo connection, what happened is this:

I downloaded a POS video -- purportedly a documentary on serial killers or "The Real Hannibal Lectors" thinking (foolish me) that this would be a real history, with case histories, evidence, clues, real insights from real investigators ... you know what I mean.

Well, it weren't. It was a talking head blabfest with two jew (purported) headshrinkers stating that:- "Serial killers are almost exclusively middle-aged White males --"

What really got me going was that the heebocracy have huge quantities of money and resources at their fingertips, but they're jews and by jew standards (they got standards?) it's not enough.

But what really kills me is that the so-called "Quality" flicks, today -- ones that actually purport to tell an engaging story are also rubbish

Interstellar is an overblown, pointless mishmash ... Ex Machina is a retread of Blade Runner, The Bicentennial Man and Spielberg's A.I. -- Artificial Intelligence and even previous so-called "seriously themed" flicks like The Road and No Country for Old Men are bleak, pessimistic tracts that offer much angst with no discernible attempt at a solution.

Even the much-vaunted Christopher Nolan's flicks (Batman Begins, Dark Knights 1 and 2, Inception) start off like gangbusters ... and fizzle in the third act.

I suppose that the one bright spot is that the yid stranglehold on the music industry (and its astronomical profits) is crumbling.

Other Trusted OfficalsMore evidence that these people who claim to be Jews are God's enemies and not His chosen people.

I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and [I know] the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are NOT, but [are] (Idumeans) the synagogue of Satan.

King of kings' Bible - Revelation 2:9Know a tree by the fruit it bears.

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into The Fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Colonel Sanders has risen again in a drive to get more people finger lickin' happy about KFC.

The fried-chicken chain will have comedian Darrell Hammond portray the company's bearded founder in a new set of ads running on TV and social media. The move is part of an effort to update the chain's restaurants and packaging, with newly designed chicken buckets, bags and boxes.

KFC, which is celebrating the 75th anniversary of its original chicken recipe this year, follows McDonald's in trying to attract new customers with personalities from fast food's past.

UN, that comment about serial killers. It NEVER ends, does it? They have to keep reinforcing, endlessly, the 'bad white man' meme. You see it in every forum. I long for the day that we explode into violent action, even if it brings the house down around us.

The laying waste of Labour in Scotland, and with it Israel's Amen Corner there, is indeed a welcome development (comment Uncle Nasty). But, but. You see just like locusts will abandon a field of corn once it gets used up and then move to the next one so will the hebes in this case. So watch out in due course for an SNP 'Friends of Israel' grouping, an even greater commitment to diversity etc. as money takes its toll.

Still let us be grateful for small mercies and savor the victory for now.

I wonder Uncle N. if you are unduly optimistic about the truth. It does indeed lie, dormant, beneath that pile of dung you refer to. But when, like a chrysalis, will it emerge? Will it ever emerge?

You see the truth about so many things has lain dormant for so long that its eventual unearthing makes it almost irrelevant. The Pearl Harbor false flag represents a fine example. Truth now emerging but people just don't care.

UN, you're right about movies. I haven't gone out to a movie in more years than I can remember, and nowadays I just steal them online. At that, I very, very seldom bother with anything from the current millennium. One exception that I enjoyed was Taken.

This is more or less mandated by the ubiquitous presence of what I call the GNOMEs. That stands for the Gratuitous Negro Obtruding to Mimic a European. The totally unnecessary, jarring kaffir playing the role that in real life, or the original book, is a White man - the scientist, inventor, computer genius or Norse god. Or just God. I will not watch that kak. Maybe I'll make an exception for Zulu, I haven't decided yet.

But apart from that, you know what? I find I just can't relate to the modern movies. They're just ugly. Even the attempted comedies, hell, even the attempted romantic comedies, are ugly. Ugly people, ugly situations, ugly culture. And technically, despite all that cool technology, they suck. The actors all mumble their lines so that I can't follow the dialogue (I guess that's the new method acting), which is always exacerbated by the too-loud music and sound effects.

So, as I say, I mostly limit myself to movies from the 50s, 60s and 70s. As it is, I have more of those than I'll watch in my lifetime. It's actually funny to see some of the most-awarded films from that time, and how abysmally bad they were (think Around the World in 80 Days), but there are some good old classics.

I really feel sorry for the kids of today. They'll never know what we've lost.

Speaking of which, doesn't the sight of the Drakensberg escarpment in the background of that Zulu clip make you homesick? What a waste, to hand it all over to the kaffirs.

Well my friend, I think now's the time you warmly embraced the 'slippery slope' perspective. Radicalized homosexuals have pushed their agenda - with help from all of the usual suspects and their untold billions - in increments. Here in the U.S., it started with the concept of civil unions, proceeded to adoptions and has ultimately manifested itself into 'marriage equality'.

At every turn, these bastards claimed this was their last request, always maintaining that marriage was off the table. Well, we see where now where the popular naivete has gotten us... Dear God, my beloved Ireland, land of my maternal ancestors, is hell-bent to fling itself over the precipice of godless cultural Marxism and repudiate what little remains of its incomparable Christian patrimony.

If this issue goes unchecked, nothing save a violent revolution will ever restore our societies. Indeed, we may have no alternative and events may have left us no other option. I firmly believe you can shake your fist at God only for so long...

I encourage you and all of your fine readers to support, in any way possible, all measures to defeat this despicable, horrendous affront to civilization. I will redouble my prayers to this end.

Great acronym there Analogman. So apt. Your take on movies mirrors mins 100%. And do you remember the plethora of 'buddie movies'? The formula was so rigid that it could have been produced by a computer rather than the mind of some nation-wrecking jew.

Black guy and a white guy forced to become partners in some operation, usually police work. Start off by hating one another with all the usual stereotypes given an airing. But over time they begin to realise that actually, we're all the same, blacks are great, we're all one happy family. They became formulaic to the extent that they became parodies of themselves.

AGree with you about handing over SA to the kaffirs too. I weep. But what was the alternative?

Decades before any state had seriously considered legalizing gay marriage, long before anyone had thought of creating—never mind repealing—a policy called “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” before Reagan, before AIDS, before the American Psychiatric Association determined that homosexuality was not a mental illness, and before half the people currently living in America were even born, a man named John Singer stepped into the King County marriage license office in Seattle.

The year was 1971.

In front of a bunch of local media that had been tipped off in advance, Singer and Barwick marched up to the desk of the county auditor, a man named Lloyd Hara, and told him they wanted a marriage license. Hara refused.

So began one of the first—and least famous—gay marriage lawsuits in the nation, Singer v. Hara.http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/101628/gay-marriages-jewish-pioneer

YNET News, 23 May 2013

Biden: Jewish Leaders Drove Gay Marriage Changes

Speaking at Jewish American Heritage Month reception, US vice president says Jewish values are essential part of who Americans are

Biden said culture and arts changed people's attitudes. He cited social media and the old NBC TV series "Will and Grace" as examples of what helped changed attitudes on gay marriage.

Biden said, "Think – behind of all that, I bet you 85% of those changes, whether it's in Hollywood or social media, are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry."http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4382986,00.html

The ruling by a state rabbinic court in Jerusalem which forbids a divorced woman from letting her children meet her new lesbian lover has highlighted the staggering hypocrisy in Jewish Supremacists with regard to non-Jewish nations—and revealed their own racist tribal loyalty to Israel.

The hypocrisy is never-ending: the leading Jewish Supremacist pressure group, the Anti-Defamation League, has, according to its own website, a “longstanding commitment to protecting civil rights, particularly those that affect the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community.”

This is the same ADL, a so-called human rights organization that completely supports Israel, a nation built on the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. A state notorious for human torture, and that is periodically massacres thousands of Palestinians men, women and children, and a state as the above article shows, that will not allow a divorced woman to allow her children to meet her girlfriend.

So, is the ADL’s support of gay marriage truly a support of gay marriage, or is it a weapon it uses to weaken and divide Gentile society? The vast racism, murder, and other human rights crimes of Israel, does not bother the ADL at all.

This blatant hypocrisy shows how Jewish Supremacists go to work: they promote one thing which is “good for Jews” in the ultimate Jews-only state, but then they promote exactly the opposite—what they consider bad—for every Gentile state where they are a minority.

"SAVANT said...@St. Petersburg Irish Pollack, I share your pain buddy. Especially as I see its source every time I walk our streets. The transformation here, and its speed, has been nothing short of breathtaking."

Indeed, Savant. Along with all of the other manifestations of cultural Marxism/leftism that have become the ascendancy as of late, the concerted attack on the traditional Christian family - and on Christianity/Catholicism in general - is nothing short of diabolical. Some of our agnostic/atheist friends may roll their eyes, but I truly believe the Prince of Darkness has been given dominion over this depraved world of ours.

I was in high school in Chicago during the early 1980s, and even then I thought things were bad. But the homo/tranny/bull dyke triumph was beyond the pale; no one, and I mean NO ONE, thirty short years ago could imagine that society would be coerced into the hysterical promotion of the 'gay agenda'. Back then people still viewed such things as vile, unnatural and something not to be discussed in polite society.

The speed with which the campaigns of our enemies - the enemies of all that is good and decent - has become mainstream is inexplicable. Inexplicable, that is, unless you assign malevolent, demonic agency to it. I'd need more time to flesh out a grand unified theory of how this, the immigration piece and a couple dozen other injurious phenomena are linked, but I suspect it's all of one piece.

Unlike many other paleoconservatives, identitarians, traditionalists, etc., I remain optimistic that none of this will endure, and that we'll inevitably restore order and sanity to our Western civilization. There is what I consider to be a neurotic cynicism on the part of many of our friends that almost relishes the concept of white genocide and the destruction of Western civilization; I can't account for it, but it's palpably out there. My view is that we may suffer downturns in our fortunes, but our enemies simply can't extinguish us; there are too many of us, we're too intelligent and resilient, and our culture is ultimately invincible. But I fear that the restoration won't come about without tremendous upheaval and bloodshed, and I wish to God that there were another way.

I thought you and your readers might enjoy the following article: http://takimag.com/article/first_they_came_for_the_bakers_paul_wood/print#axzz3anwLeFwd

While I'm far more reactionary than this particular writer, I highly endorse the majority of Takimag's contributors (there are a couple who inexplicably are published and don't seem consonant with the prevailing identitarian and traditionalist sentiments of this online resource).

Frank Galton. The American Psychiatry Association was a breakaway from the 'orthodox ' one - I forget its name. It was immediately came under jewish domination and initiated a radical program geared mainly towards normalizing what had hitherto been deemed pathologies. Homosexuality for example.

Things have 'progressed' very much since then. Their latest tack is to legitimize and normalize paedophilia.

Overlooked in the media commentaries is the fact that now two gay men or women may marry, two NON-gay men or women may now also marry.

If they do so, they acquire so-called "spousal privilege."

There are huge implications in civil cases, but also in criminal cases there will be a situation where, say, a drug dealer may legally marry another dealer and now they cannot be compelled to testify against each other and any testimony between spouses is not allowed.

I’m sure a creative solicitor will quite easily figure out how to arrange a marriage to beat inheritance taxes and gift taxes.

Gay marriage is a prime example of western individualism breaking loose of its traditional moorings and going AWOL.

I support gays, lesbians, and to some extent, cross-dressers coming out of the closet, since nobody wants to get into relationships with people who have different sexual or gender orientations. Imagine being a poor guy in the Middle East who is forced to marry an aggressive butch lesbian.

However, gay marriage is a completely different thing altogether - this isn't toleration of minorities for everyone's benefit, it's minorities oppressing the majority for their own personal agendas.

For all you traditionalists who support the Church of Rome you may find these facts regarding the Catholic Church's historical attitudes towards marriage and women interesting and rather shocking:

The modern day Christian church is adamant about its historic role as a defender of women and marriage, and the Catholic church is rock solid in its refusal to grant divorce and so on. It appears to be the champion of this institution, but history tells us otherwise.

Can you not see that by refusing divorce, it tries to lock in partners for life, so that if it happens to be a trap of emotional exploitation for one or both of them, that trap cannot be broken? It is a cunning way of keeping people programmed and of dictating to them.

Christian Fathers and Doctors of the Church in the early years were opposed to this institution of marriage. Origen declared "Matrimony is impure and unholy, a means of sexual passion". Jerome stated that "a man of God was to cut down with an axe of virginity the wood of marriage." Ambrose said "marriage was a crime against God for changing the state of virginity that God gave every man and woman at birth." Tertullian said "marriage was a moral crime, that it was obscenity." Augustine said "Marriage was a sin" even though he had a defacto and sired children. Tatian said "Marriage is corruption, a polluted and foul way of life." Saturninus said "God made only two kinds of people, good men and evil women." St. Bernard claimed "It is easier for a man to bring the dead back to life than to live with a woman without endangering his soul."

Assyrian churches ruled that no person could become Christian except celibate men and that no man that had ever been married could be baptised. St. Paul, 1 Corinthians: "marriage was only slightly better than to burn." But later, Pauline Christians quoted Jesus as saying, "If any man come to Me and hate not his father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple." Luke 14:26.

Jesus renounced His family declaring He had no relatives except the faithful. Actually these are distortions of Gnostic esoteric sayings. Jesus was trying to show that His only family consisted of the True Beings and that all emotional attachments on this plane had to be cut.

Jerome, in writing the Latin Vulgate, used this as a reason for destroying marriage and the family, and he stated that every man who loves his wife passionately was guilty of adultery, and this was repeated by the present pope in this decade. Inspite of what the church said, there was no Christian sacrament of marriage until the 16th century. Marriage was imposed, in a way, by monetary consideration and political expediency on a reluctant church, and the liturgical forms were borrowed from "pagan" canon law. The Anglicans actually borrowed the marriage ceremony from the Anglo-Saxon deeds.

In contrast, in Asia the Gods were married; the Brahman priests were married and the early Israelites banned unmarried men from the priesthood. Marriage was a greatly venerated ceremony under the so-called pagan religious doctrines. The Council of Trent declared anathema for anyone who said that marriage was more blessed than celibacy. (continued)

Thought you may find these facts regarding the Catholic Church's historical attitudes towards marriage and women interesting and rather shocking: *The modern day Christian church is adamant about its historic role as a defender of women and marriage, and the Catholic church is rock solid in its refusal to grant divorce and so on. It appears to be the champion of this institution, but history tells us otherwise.

Can you not see that by refusing divorce, it tries to lock in partners for life, so that if it happens to be a trap of emotional exploitation for one or both of them, that trap cannot be broken? It is a cunning way of keeping people programmed and of dictating to them.

Christian Fathers and Doctors of the Church in the early years were opposed to this institution of marriage. Origen declared "Matrimony is impure and unholy, a means of sexual passion". Jerome stated that "a man of God was to cut down with an axe of virginity the wood of marriage." Ambrose said "marriage was a crime against God for changing the state of virginity that God gave every man and woman at birth." Tertullian said "marriage was a moral crime, that it was obscenity." Augustine said "Marriage was a sin" even though he had a defacto and sired children. Tatian said "Marriage is corruption, a polluted and foul way of life." Saturninus said "God made only two kinds of people, good men and evil women." St. Bernard claimed "It is easier for a man to bring the dead back to life than to live with a woman without endangering his soul."

Assyrian churches ruled that no person could become Christian except celibate men and that no man that had ever been married could be baptised. St. Paul, 1 Corinthians: "marriage was only slightly better than to burn." But later, Pauline Christians quoted Jesus as saying, "If any man come to Me and hate not his father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple." Luke 14:26.

Jesus renounced His family declaring He had no relatives except the faithful. Actually these are distortions of Gnostic esoteric sayings. Jesus was trying to show that His only family consisted of the True Beings and that all emotional attachments on this plane had to be cut.

Jerome, in writing the Latin Vulgate, used this as a reason for destroying marriage and the family, and he stated that every man who loves his wife passionately was guilty of adultery, and this was repeated by the present pope in this decade. Inspite of what the church said, there was no Christian sacrament of marriage until the 16th century. Marriage was imposed, in a way, by monetary consideration and political expediency on a reluctant church, and the liturgical forms were borrowed from "pagan" canon law. The Anglicans actually borrowed the marriage ceremony from the Anglo-Saxon deeds.(continued)

(continued) In contrast, in Asia the Gods were married; the Brahman priests were married and the early Israelites banned unmarried men from the priesthood. Marriage was a greatly venerated ceremony under the so-called pagan religious doctrines. The Council of Trent declared anathema for anyone who said that marriage was more blessed than celibacy. And so it was that in early times the Christian marriage was a simple blessing of the newly-wedded in FACIE ECCLESIAE -- outside the church's closed doors. This blessing, it is reported, was a technical violation of canon law but it became popular and gradually won acceptance. In 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council granted it legal status. However, the church maintained that there was no marriage in Heaven and Christ's statement in the scriptures was quoted. Thomas Aquinas (a demonic consciousness) assigned a goodness value of 30 to marriage as compared to 60 for widowhood and 100 for virginity.

During the Middle Ages there was no ecclesiastical definition of a valid marriage nor of any contract to validate one. Marriage was ignored by the church, leaving it largely in the realm of the Common Law. Temporary trial marriages were legal until the 17th century and under Roman and so-called pagan law, marriage could be entered into and dissolved fairly easily. It was not until 1563 that the church declared that priestly blessing was essential. And it was not until 1753 that Lord Harwicke's Act made clerical blessing a requirement for legal marriage in England. But even then the Act did not apply to Scotland.

When laws were changed and men were permitted to bequeath their property directly to their children, celibacy was strictly enforced among the clergy. In other words, priests were forbidden to enter into valid marriages so that they would not have heirs. Hence, all property they owned or gained would revert back to the church when they died. These changes were not considered until well into the Middle Ages. During the 5th and 6th centuries, priests did take wives and this continued until the 11th century. These new laws brought much wealth to the church. In 1074 Excommunication of married priests was established and yet in 1123 the First Lateran Council had to again suppress simony and marriage of priests.

Throughout these cruel ages, the church fostered chastisement of wives by husbands, their theological view being that the woman had sinned more than the man and should therefore be unhappier. Men were only doing God's will when they made women suffer. Of course this contrasted to the Gnostics who saw women as equals at all times and also it contrasted with the Orientals who cherished their women.

Men were exhorted from the pulpit to beat their wives and wives to kiss the rod that beat them. Friar Cherubino's 15th century Rules of Marriage made a husband his wife's judge: "Scold her sharply, bully and terrify her, then readily beat her, not in rage but out of charity and concern for her soul so that the beating will rule down to your merit".

Wife beating was a by-product of the Christian view of woman as man's property. Thomas Aquinas said a wife is lower than a slave because a slave may be freed; "Woman is in subjection according to the law of nature, but a slave is not."

Finally, to demonstrate that the church had no official policy on marriage, consider the case of Charlemagne. He had eight official wives and countless concubines. But having rendered the church invaluable service, by slaughtering all those in opposition to it, he was made emperor of the Holy Roman Empire by the Pope and later declared a Saint. Under the doctrines of today's church he would, no doubt, be excommunicated and sent to Hell!

Today's "Church" is a wishy washy joke Raparee O'Hogan. You do know they abolished hell, guilt and sin after Vatican II and now everyone goes to heaven. Raporee should get a job in RTE exposing paedophile priests or something. Personally I would burn Raporee as a heretic along with the entire Irish mainstream media.